Ex Parte Nash - Page 3

             Appeal 2007-1293                                                                                         
             Application 10/745,124                                                                                   


                                            REJECTIONS AT ISSUE                                                       
                    Claims 1 through 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated                        
             by Konopka.  The Examiner’s rejection is set forth on page 3 of the Answer.                              
                    Claims 1 through 3, 9, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as                          
             anticipated by Lieder.  The Examiner’s rejection is set forth on page 4 of the                           
             Answer.                                                                                                  
                    Claims 4, and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being                                  
             unpatentable over Lieder in view of Nishibe.  The Examiner’s rejection is set forth                      
             on pages 4 and 5 of the Answer.                                                                          
                    Claims 6 through 8, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being                       
             unpatentable over Lieder in view of Yanagihara.  The Examiner’s rejection is set                         
             forth on page 5 of the Answer.                                                                           
                    Claims 6 through 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being                               
             unpatentable over Konopka in view of Yanagihara.  The Examiner’s rejection is set                        
             forth on pages 5 and 6 of the Answer.                                                                    
                    Throughout the opinion we make reference to the Brief and Reply Brief                             
             (filed March 20, 2006, and August 8, 2006, respectively), and the Answer (mailed                         
             June 8, 2006) for the respective details thereof.                                                        



                                                                                                                      
             2 We note that the final Office action included a rejection of claims 9 and 10 as                        
             anticipated by Konopka.  This rejection was not repeated in the Examiner’s                               
             Answer.  Accordingly, we consider the rejection to be withdrawn.                                         
                                                          3                                                           


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013